The Sun. — London, England, 1838-03-27 00:00:00

ad been his salvation. I r*, indeed, they could, as in the case of the Irish police, make dismi,sal from the service a punish :rent, it would be highly desirc.ble. That force compri7 , ,ed 7,030 of the finest men he ever saw, and during the whole time he passed in Ireland he hid never seen one of them drunk. Put they could rot place the sJldier in such a po sition. It would be too expensive to raise his pay to such an amount as would rety!cr dismissal a punishment. Air. HUME sail thcre were many instances of regiments in which no corporal punishmeas were inflicted, and he thought, therefore, aat i:isc ipliee could be F,:served isitbout. He wondered the principle of rewards, instead of punishments, was not tried in the army as well as elsewhere. la hi. opinion the appointment of a Committee would be very beneficial, if it were only to ascertain what effect even honorary rewards would be calculated to produce. Mr. PEMBERTON said that if, in the present consti tution of our army, corporal punishments were abolished, it would be better to disband our regiments eltogether. Ile was satisfied that the agitation of the qu. stiou bad been productive of the most mischite.ous results. %Vial respect to what had been said relative to the ()icier issued in Spain by the Hon. and Gallant Member fur Westminster, he ( Mr. Pember ton) should like to know what cons:ruction the law oil cars of the Crown would put upon the lOist Article of War. It would be iicportar.t to know whether his conduct in issuing such an order as he had isseed was approved of by Govern ment, or was by them considered consistent with the Articles of War. The question was this—was it or wis it not a ;art of the Provost system to punish only those offonces of which the Provost- Marshal was an eye-witness—and that no punish ment could be inflicted by an order from any officer below the rank of Commander-in-Chief? The Provost system was only resorted to in the fi, Id or on the march, and it was very doubt ful whether it gave the power of life and death ; because in the Mutiny Act under which the system was established, there were to be found the words short of life and death." The Provost-Marshal was generally selected from non-commissioned officers, and lie was empowered to punish breaches of discipline. It was requisite, however, that, whatever was the offence cc.rn rnitted, that functionary should be an eye-witness of it. Now, no person could rosiibly read the order of the Gallant Morn tier opposite, together with the Articles of War, and assert that they were consistent with each other. The order of the Gallant Gentleman did not render it necessary that the Pro vost- Marshal should be an eye- witness of the offence. On the contrary, he was to hoar and decide evidence, pro and con, befoce coming to an alternative which the law did not vest even in officers of higher rank. Sir H. VIVIAN had never seen the order alluded to ; but if a steict scrutiny were made, he felt satisfied it would be found that similar orders had been issued, and he had his doubts whether such a proceeding would not be quite consistent with military law. Sir A. DALRYMPLE did not think the Committee was called :en Sir G. EVANS was better pleased that the charge against him had taken this tan g ible shape, rather than that it should continue to exist in unfounded rumours. The power of punish ment which he (Sir G. Evans) had given was the very mini mum, and therefore it was not necessary that so great a vigi lance should be used with respect to the exercise of it. Indeed it was scarcely more than a nominal punishment. With re spect to the flo g ging of women which had bee n ur g ed a g ainst him, both in that 'House and at the hustings, ho had never heard of it until it had been stated its some newspaper, and he then instituted an inquiry. Two cases had been alleged. In one case the officer, who it had been said committed the out rage, was dead, and of course any inquiry would be useless. In the other, inquiry would have been equally useless, for the :officer had been cashiered. He could not then have instituted an inquiry into the allegation, but he repelled with scorn any imputation of ever having authorised or being party , to such proceedings.—( Year, hear, from both sides of the - House.) He could not say whether any such outrage had taken place, but if it had the same had occurred durine. the Peninsular war, where women had been slightly puni'JieS. No powers of the Provost had to do with punishments of a capital nature ; and, therefore, it was not inconsistent with the articles of war to confer the power of inflicting inferior punishments on officers in the force. The Duke of Welling ton had admitted that there were abuses in the administration of the Provosts' power in the Peninsular army. That was a sufficient justification for any abuse in the Legion. He (Sir G. Evans) did not deny that they might be traced in the army under his command. All he had to do was to inflict such pu nishments as he thought fittest to enforce the necessary disci pline of that force. He could state, that in several cases offi ---cers were obliged to leave the service in consequence of abuse of the power confided to them. Shortly after his arrival, he directed his attention to the subject of corporal punishment, and the result was the adoption of the system of delegating the power of minor punishment to the officers, with their concur. rence. This power had no connection whatever with capital punishment ; and as to his consistency in doing so, that had been already judged by the vote of 1,10(i of his constituents. who formed his majority at the last g eneral election. He should support the motion of the Hon. and Gallant Member opposite, because, from his own experience, be believed that capital pu nishments were not necessary. Sir H. HARDING E agreed with the Honourable and Gallant Officer when he wished the House to believe that he was actuated by none but humane motives in adopting the system of punishment practised in the Legion. He could not, however, do tha same as regarded the judgment which he displayed. The estiblisliment of the Provost system was decidedly en error of judgment. The Honourable and Gal lant Officer had said that the Duke of Wellington acknow ledged the existence of abuses in the system of his army, but it was not of the abuses, but of the adoption of the system that he ( Sir H. Hardinge) complained. It was a system contrary to the law, and it was, therefore, altogether an abuse; whereas, the abuses complained of by the Duke of Wellington were those inseparable from every system, however legal. He (Sir H. Hardinge) objected to the system of prevotal power as established by the Honourable and Gallant Officer in the Legion. It was the delegation of the despotism which should always rest with the Commander-in-Chief to inferior and less trustworthy hands. The consequence was that it was no uncommon thing for twenty men to be taken out of the rinks of a morning and flogged upon parade. Such a power as that system gave to officers was never before given in a British army, and he hoped would never be given again. It was all the consequence of the irresponsible command held by the Honourable and Gallant Officer. It was stipulated in the articles of engagement entered into by the Legion, and signed by the Honourable and Gallant Officer, that the men should be treated in the same manner as the British army were. Sir G. EVANS had never signed the document alluded to, which was drawn up without his concurrence by the Spanish Government : he had merely signed a certificate that the do cument to which it was sin.lated was a true copy of that agree- ment. Sir 11. HARDING E was convinced that the Hon. and Gallant Officer would never have accepted the command if the soldiers were not to be treated in the same mariner as Bri tish soldiers—that was by the Articles of War. Now the 3d article of agreement stated distinctly that they were. to be so treated. It expressly said, " The force to he governed by the British Military Articles of War, and in matters not con. netted with military discipline by the laws and institutions of Spain in all other circumstances ;" and yet the officers of the Legion had a power entrusted to them by the Hon. and Gal lant Officer which was unknown in the British army. The Gallant Officer in August, 1833, a few days after the Legion lended at San Sebastian, and before the ritish system had even been tried, issued a general order, of which the follow ing was an eltract i— " For the I .:reselit there will be one Deputy- Provost- Mar- shal, with the veal: and pay of Ensign. This officer is to be attached to head-quarters generally, but is liable to be sent with any brigade, rejisnent,or detachment, as maybe directed. Each regiment farther orders, have a Sergeant Assistant Provost, selectet; from the most able-bodied, steadiest, and most efficient of thc non-commissioned officers, with the pay of quarter-master-sefgeant. The Assistant- Provost to be under the controul of Coe Deputy Provost- Marshal, but all are liable to receive orders from General and Staff Officers and regimental Commanding Officers—provided always that such instructions are rot in o?position to the fol. lowing outline of the duties of the Provost, viz.—All Provost- Marshals and their assistants are empowered to inflict sum mary punishment (on the breach) to an amount not execeditig two dozen, according to the degree of offenee, on soldiers teed followers of the Legion found in the commission of offences against discipline, plundering, drunkenness, violence, and, in short, every offence leading to the subversion of good order in the army. The Prevost must either see the offence himself, or have it from the testimony of competent eye-witnesses." Yet one of the British articles of ear, to v hick the Gallant • Officer was bound by the Conditions of service countersigned by him, distinctly states that " whatever be the crime, the Provost-Marshal shall SEE the offender commit the act for which summary punishment may be inflicted." Two indi viduals had come to him ( Sir Henry Ilardinge) very re cently, one of whom, an officer who had served in the Legion, as Adjutant of a Regiment, stated that the Captains and subalterns had the power at their will to order sol diers to he flogged by the Provost, but that some commanding officers would net allow this power to be delegated. This gentleman further stated that it was not unusual fur the coni manding officer to say to him when he had brought him the morning's report, without inquiring further, " Give the ras cals four doz"n each, and turn them out ;" and the other, a Provost, sergeant of the same force, who bed held that appoint ment for fourteen months, told him that the captains had a power of ordering four dozen, and that they generally in flicted that amount of punishment for the most trivial offences. On one occasion a subaltern had broeght him, he said, five risen to be flogged for absence from morning parade—a se. verity of punishment ne‘er heard of before in a British army. On another, an officer had ordered a man to receive four dozen lashes in the morning and four in the evening. Or a third, the cononaliding officer had sent a poo: fellow with a verbal message to receive two dozen, which were given ac cordingly.—( Laughter.) Such occurrences were most infre quent ie the British army. Thee, as to the severity of pu nishment, there was in London at this time a soldier of the Legion, tried by courtmartial, who received in the convent of Corban 309 lashes with the man-of-war's cats. He (Sir H. Handinge) would not mention his name, for he was respectably connected, but it could be given if necessary. Serjeant So merville, who wls. he believed, well known to the Honour able Member for Kilkenny, said in hit book that he saw forty or fifty men punished at the same time in the Convent of Cor ban, some of them being barely convalescent ; an d h e further adds th a t suc h was t h e impression ;produced by it that tiea eol diers threatened to shoot their officers. He (Sir H. Har din:To trusted that the discussion of the eves ing would not be without its beneficial results ; but when the Honourable and Gallant Officer said that in his . opinion his systeM wassy_- cordance with the A rt i c l es of War, he could not agree loth him.—( Hear.) Sir G. EVANS said, in explanation, he had always, vibes in his own power, commuted the heavier penalties. Sir H. HA R.DINGE said that this did not relieve the Hon. Gentleman from the charge of inconsi , iteiicy. Mr. TENNYSON D'E YNCOURT de&are_ol his bel:ef that this motion was commenced,. not with the intention of cting ae practice of corporal punishment, but with the rersonul and exclusive object of attacking his Hon. and Gal lant Friend, who he was convinced was actuated'by the purest and most humane motives in avoiding capital punishments, not one of which had 'aken place under his command'in Spain. NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Captain 130 LDER 0 said that the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last had attacked him most unwarrantably and most un justly. Ile had attributed to him what he never intended, and what he must have known was actually contrary to the fact ; fur the first Session that he had had a seat in that House, he (Captain Boldero) had given notice of his intention to move for the abolition of corporal punishments in the army. There fore lie had no right to— _ _ . The SPEAKER interposed, to say that the Hon. Gentle man was going further than what appeared to be necessary. He had done quite sufficient in disavowing the interoions im puted to him, and station- what his own really were. Captain BOLD E felt that the individual who had so aspersed him had a right to apclogiac, and he demanded an apology accordingly. The SPEAKER thought that the lion. and Gallant Gen thman was proceeding too far in demanding an apology for the misconception which he had Just announced that another Hon. -Member had committed in the view he had taken of the (night of the debate. If that Hon. Member persevered in his misconccp— Mr. TENNYSON D'EYNCOITRT rose to assure the lion. and Gallant Gentleman that he had no intention of im puting a personal and vexatious attack upon his lion. and Gallant Friend to him. He thought at the time that he had bren selected by some other person to bring forward the sub ject, to afford them an.opportunity of attacking his Hon. and Gallant Friend.— (" Name, name.") He would not name. Sir H. HA R DING E said that it should he recollected that when the Spanish question came before the House on a former occasion the Hon. and Gallant Officer himself suggested that they had better discuss the topic of corporal punishment when the Mutiny Bill came on.—( Hear, hear.) Lord HO WIC K said that the House could not possibly de cide such a question, so important to the discipline of the British army, by any repo, t a Select Committee might make; nor did he think any such inquiry as had been suggested at till necessary at the present moment. He was not prepared to assent to taking away the power possessed by Courts-martial at present, although the Hon. Member for Kilkenny argued that it could not be necessary, because he could show them a certain regiment in which it was not used ; but that was no thing to the purpose, for the power still existed there, to be exercised if required. The lion. Member said that great deal might be done by a judicious system of rewards by promotion. Now, this was difficult in peace, but he held in his hand a return showing the number of commissions which had been given away within the last four years. F: am April I, 1834, to March 6, 1838, there were given, without purchase, 396. Of that number there were 86 transfers from the half-pay, and 84 to non-commissioned officers of the army ; 106 of the re mainder were given to pupils of the Military College. He had also submitted to his late Majesty another mode of reward for good conduct—viz., by honorary distinction, which had already had the best effects : 2,491 soldiers, entitled by length of service to increase of pay, had given up that right under the resolutions, and accepted the distinction ; 6,71 i others had established their claims thereunto. Total so re warded, 9,206. lle hoped, however, to diminish corporal punishments in the army by another and more effective means —confinement ; but for that purpose the House must, in the first place, afford the means to render their ideas practicable. He was sorry to observe that, from the first agitation of this question, though corporal punishments had been diminished, other inflictions, pursuant to sentence of Court-martial, had taken place. In 1825 the number of soldiers sentenced was 4,708, and 1,723 corporal punishments were inflicted. In 1836 foe total number of Courts-martial amounted to 8,965 (nearly double), while the number of corporal punishments was only 863 (just half). He believed that this motion for an inquiry was merely a trap for inexperienced votes, and trusted that the House would negative it by a large majority. Sir C. B. VERE would not vote against the motion. General JOHNSTON stated his intention of voting for the motion. The House then divided. On returning to the Gallery we found the numbers to be— For the motion Against it Majority against the motion 93 The House then resolved itself into Committe on the Mutiny and Marine Mutiny Bills. Mr. HL'ME wished to ask the Noble Lord the Secretary at War if there had been any diminution of corporal punish ments in the army? Viscount HO\VICK made some reply, which was quite inaudible in the gallery. Mr. HUME then wished to ask whether any abstract had been prepared of the number of corporal punishments in the navy? He understood that great improvements had been effected in that department, and he thought it would be more satisfactory if the House was formally made acquainted with the fact. Mr. WOOD (as we understood him) expressed himself un prepared to answer the question of the Hon. Member. After some further conversation both Bills passed through Committee, and the House resumed. SUPPLY. On bringing up the report, Lord HOTHAM could not refrain from saying a few words On a subject which of late had engaged a good deal of the public attention. He meant the order lately conferred on the Hon. and Gallant Member for Westminster; at the same time he begged to assure the House that nothing could be farther from his intention than to cast any personal reflection on that Hon. and Gallant Member, whom he knew, and if he did not know he had many opportunities of hearing, had distinguished himself by his services. He was willing to give the Gallant Member full credit for his zeal and gallantry, and he felt con vinced that if that Gallant Member had not achieved a better claim to the honour lately conferred on him the deficiency should be attributed to want of opportuuity, not of inclina tion. But that Gallant Officer had been promoted over the beads of officers whose services even himself would admit were greater than his own ; and he (Lord Ilotham) believed that if the Gallant Officer had not served her Majesty's Go vernment elsewhere than in the field he never would have been Commander of the Bath. —( Hear, hear.) Perhaps he might be told that in alluding to this subject he was trenching on the prerogative of the Crown. But when such a gross injustice was done to so many veteran and gallant officers it was no an swer to talk of the prerogative of the Crown.—(Hear.) He did not intend to pursue the subject further. Lord PALMERSTON said that the honour conferred, he believed de,ervedly, on his Hon. and Gallant Friend should be disapproved of in the society frequented by the Noble Lord was not a matter of surprise to him ( Lord Palmerston). The Noble Lord was mistaken in his view of the statutes of the Or der of the Beth—there:was no statute which required that any person obtaining the rank of second class should previously heye enjoyed that of third class. Lord HOT HAM had assented to no such thing. Lord PALMERSTON—Then if the Noble Lord said no such thing, of course that part of his criticism fell to the ground.—( A laugh.) There was no fault to the exercise of the prerogative on that score. Another objection made by the Noble Lord was that officers of long service had been passed over to make way for his (Lord Palmerston's) Gallant Friend. Now he was not going to enter into any discussion as to the merits of individuals ; he felt that nothing could be more invidious ; but he begged leave to aay that the Order of the Bath was riot intended as a reward for length of service, but for distinguished services. The Noble Lord had asked why his Hon. and Gallant Friend was not placed amongst the supernumerary class of foreign officers ? Why, because he was a British subject, and held his commission in the Bri tish army ; and although it was the peculiar circumstance of his holding the rank of General Officer in a foreign service, by the permission of his own Sovereign, that cnabl--d Government to make, in his case, an exception to the ffeneral practice; yet it would be great injustice to him if, on that account, they had classed him as a foreign officer. He would only say that the services performed by his Hon. and Gallant Friend :Fe re know to the world—( Hear, hear, and ironical cheers)—and on Iliern he would rest the vindication of Government. Sir G. DE LACY EVANS said it would be invidious of him to go into an investigation of the services of other offi eers ; but he challenged comparison, and he was willing to pet his services beside those of any officer who had ever re ceived the honour of the Bath. He thought this motion quite superfluous on the eve of the lengthened discussion threatened to-morrow ; but the Noble Lord would have his anticipatory speech.—(" No, no I") He ( Sir G. Evans) Wag not surprised that Hon. Gentlemen opposite should question the honour he had received from his Sovereign, as he believed ' the same gentlemee would not long since have consigned him to the tender mercies of the Durango decree.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to the small mallea of those individuals— The SPEAKER here called the lion. and Gallant Mem ber to order. ,Sir G. EVANS—With regard to the feeling there had been evinced be had no objection to its continuance, as, if it always proved as abortive as in the present instance, its only effect would be to enhance his estimation of the honour he had received. Lord El OTHAM, in explanation, said that his motion had no reference to the subject to be diseussed to-morrow. It had been his intention to ask the question on the passing of the Army Estimates. Mr. PALMER wished to know whether it was fur services performed fur a foreign State or for this country that the Gal lant Officer haul beee reiverded ? If it was for services per formed for a foreign State, C3.): - 3 - ;:ncnt had placed themselves by their conduct in a situation not sery geeeil)ing. Mr. SHAW wieltoul to know whether it wes into; pled to keel-, up the Hospital of Kilelainham (Dublin) on its present footing? Mr. HUME thought the support of the establishment entailed an unnecessary expense. Mr. G RATTAN thought it desirable that the establishment should be kept up, and it was decided some years ago. Sir H. VIVIAN t l en:2_ ,, ht that as the establishment was in some measure formed by deduetiene from the pay of the sol dier it ought in justice to be kept up. Sir P. NCH was of opinion that the establishst.ent , should r be icK. supported. Lod no said fl=at persons who had not seen mill. tary seeviee ee entitle them had been admitted to the institu tion. It should his COD§ned to those only who had secri Ipng service, and be made as rtvail,b l ,2 possible f or th a t purpose. The Report was then agreed to. IRISH POOR LAWS. The Poor-4w , ( . p-eiand) Bill was re-committed pro forma A d pram() $.O c Teseiyed9n Monday next. HOUSE OF LORDS, Mutat 26. NEGRO APPRENTICESHIP. THE SUN, LONDON ; TUESDAY, MAI4CR 27, 1838. , The Grand Jury Cess (Dublin) Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed after Easter. The Annual Indemnity Bill was read a third time anc7. passee. Sir F. TlZENeilr:sTie bring under the consideration of the House an alteration in the position of the Houses of Lords and Commons, which, without any important derangement of the general plan, would very much contribute to the comfort and health of the Members of br,th Houses. The lion. Gen. tletnan, who was imperfectly heard, said that if the House were to be ventilated artificially, his motion would be none c,ssary ; but if it were the intention to procure atmospheric eir, the alteration would in his opinion be most desirable. He thought it would be highly desirable to revive the Committee upon the subject. Mr. HUAIE regretted that the lion. and Gallant Officer had not made some specific motion on the subject. Lord J. RUSSELL begged to remind the Hon. Member for Kilkenny that there was no question before the House. Mr. HUME said it was his intention, at sJrne future period, to tike the sense of the House with respect to these plans. He thought in the course they were pursuing, they were only doing mischief. Sir F. TRENCH said he had abstained from making any motion at present, not thinking such a course necessary. PRIVATE BILLS. Mr. P. TH ONIS O N, in pursuance of the notice which he bad given, moved .4 that the names of the Members ordered t brin ,, in private Bills be printed on the back of such Bills." The H7m. Gentleman said that the present course was highly inconvenient, and that he a 3 wen as others had suffered greatly fram it. He did not think there would be any objec tion to the motion. . Mr. WA KL E Y wished the Right Hon. Gentleman to withdraw his motion, foi• the purpose of enlarging the terms of it. Mr. BROTHERTON did not think the observations of the Hon. Member fur Finsbury bad any application to the re solution under consideration. Mr. HUME said that the question was one which deserved more consideration than it had received. . Mr. P. ~ THONISON did not think his proposition and that of the Hon. Member for Finsbury would exactly chime. Mr. WAK LE Y said that, although he wished the terms of the resolution to be enlarged, it was not his intention to oppose it. The SPEAKER said that the resolution proposed would, lie thought, answer the purpose they bad in view. Mr. WAK LEY thought that no one but a Member of the Committee, or one appointed by them, should be allowed to bring in a private Bill. The resolution was then agreed to. CHINA. Mr. G PA LM E R said, seeing the Noble Lord the Se cretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, he wished to put a question to him on a subject of some importance. The question which he wished to put to the Noble Lord was, whether he had received any despatch or other communica tion from her Majesty's superintendent in China stating that he had been compelled to forego the happy understanding with the Chinese Government at Canton established in the course of the last summer ? Lord PALMERSTON had received no such despatch or communication. He had seem some account of the kind in the newspapers, and he had no doubt he should receive a des patch in a short time. Mr. G. PALM E R said he considered the matter of so much importance, that he would repeat the question on a future occasion. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Twelve o'Clock. The Loan CnANCELLOR took his seat at five minutes past Five o'clock. Lord DURHAM presented petitions from Belmont, and several other places, praying for the abolition of Negro appren ticeship. Also a petition from Glasgow, and one from Dun barton, against any further endowment to the Church of Scotland. Likewise a petition from Newport, and from an otl:cr place, in favour of Vote by Ballot ; and a petition from the Corporation of Glasgow, praying for a repeal of the Corn Laws. Lord ROSEBERY presented a petition from Stirling► against any further endowment to the Church of Scotland. The Bishop of HEREFORD presented a petition from the clergy, gentry, bankers, traders, and inhabitant house holders of the city of Hereford, signed by 1,468, praying for the abolition of Negro apprenticeship ' • also a petition from the Independent Dissenters of Hereford to the like effect ; and similar petitions from the Dissenting congregation of Lady Huntingdon's Chapel, and from the Primitive Me thodists of the same city. Earl SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from Dork ing, highly respectably signed, praying for the abolition of Negro slavery. The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions from reli gious congregations of a great many different places in Man chester, Salford, and Chester, praying for the immediate emancipation of the apprenticed slaves. Tne Right Rev. Prelate's opinions on this subject very much accorded with his Right Rev. Friend's who addressed the House the other right. No one could hear what had been said, and read what had been written on this subject, without feeling that both parties were su . .,ject to great difficulties and temptations, so that it could not be doubted that it was desirable the apprenticeship sys tem should be put a speedy end to.—(Hear, hear.) In his opinion it might be put an end to with perfect safety. Lord CARLISLE presented a petition from Morpeth, praying for a total abolition of slavery. Lord RADNOR presented a petition from Maidenhead, to the same effect. The Duke of CLEVELAND presented petitions from several places in the county of Durham, to the same effect. Lord FOL E Y presented several petitions of a similar nature. The Marquis of SLIGO presented petitons from numerous Dissenting places of worship in Oldham, Saddleworth, Ash ton-under-Line, Croydon, Banbury, and several other places, praying for the immediate abolition of negro ap. prenticeship ; and a petition from the Wesleya n Cha p el in Whitefriars-street, Dublin, signed by 500 perso ns, to the same effect. The Noble :Marquis wished to take this opportunity of stating*, that he had had communications from two per sons connected with Jamaica on this subject. One was from Mr. Morris Jones, the custos of the parish, a gentleman of very large property in the West Indies, and he stated that he looked with the greatest anxiety to the emancipation of the Negro apprentices. He believed it w oul d be for the interest of the Planter, as well as for the inter est oi.i he Negro, that that emancipation should take place without delay. The other communication was from a large proprietor in the parish of St. James's, in which he did him (the Marqnis of Sligo) the honour of approving of what he had done, and stated that he ha:l directed his Manager in the West Indies to adopt the very same plan—(hear, hear)--but that he feared, unless other Managers could be brought to take the same course, much difficulty might be ex pected. He requested him (the N able Marquis) to move as an amendment to Lord Glenclg's Bill that minors and wards in the Court of Chancery and guardians should be enabled to emancipate their slaves. Lord ABERDEEN presented a petition from Dundee, against additional endowments to the Church of Scotland. The Noble Lord said that he had presented this petition because it had been sent to_ him with a request that he should present it, although it was unnecessary for him to state that he did not concur in its prayer ; and that he should take this opportunity of giving notice, that on Friday nex. he should move for certain returns on this subject, and again draw the attention of her Majesty's Ministers to what he had say upon it. Lord HOLLAND presented petitions from Preston and its vicinity, in favour of the immediate abolition of Negro apprenticeship. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Edinburgh, agreed to at a public meeting held in that City, the Mayor being in the Chair, against further endowments to the Church of Scotland ; also petitions praying for the immediate abolition of Negro apprenticeship, from the following places : —Borough of Stoekpert, and its vicinity, signed by the Mayor, and 5,562 of the inhabitants, from several Dissenting congregations of the same borough, from Stamford, from places in the counties of Chester, Kent, Rutland, and Lancaster, from Winslow, Scarborough, Yarmouth, Penzance, Northallerton, Stirling, Boston, Sudbury, Oldham, Bradford, Thirsk, Bath, Huddersfield, Matlock, South Moul ton, Holywell, Gainshorough, Colchester, Coventry, Dundalk, Bridgnorth, Lincoln, Pershore, Knaresborough, Coverley, Tralee, Hearthery ; six from Ashton-under-Lyne. The Noble Lord also presented similar petitions from Hyde, Horsley, and several other places. The Noble Lord also presented a petition from the P , otestant Dissenters of London, which was agreed to at a meeting held at the City of London Tavern, against any additional endowment to the Church of Scotland ; also similar petitions from Irvine and Salt coates. The Noble Lord stated that he bad a vast number of similar petitions to present, but he would reserve them for to-morrow. The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions from Nor wich and other places for the abolition of Negro slavery. The Marquis of LANSDO\VNE presented petitions from Cornwall and several other places, praying their Lordships to adopt some measure for the purpose of putting an end to the present mode of collecting tithes in Ireland. The Noble Marquis also presented petitions from Westbury and Devizes against Negro slav er y . RELIGIOUS RITES—INDIA. The Arcbiaiebep o f CANTERBUR Y presented petitions to the same effect frod Canterbury, and sev era L ot h er p l aces . 410 a sirtiu . num b er o f Dissentin g Clergymen, againstf ee c the interference Thoeßyighitßevhrg Rev. Prelate o releateaf the l c s prostrated f E nt l e o cl petition s i gne d by twenty-tai: a nocid at araing_ lan' of the s ervants of the East India C om p an y, relative to the superst i t ions of the labalsitente of Hi n d ustan . i The petitioners felt bound to address thetesseieee tf3 f,ordshii s on this important subject, and prayed that such or ders mighe be forthwith sent out as would procure the iraine gw4hoPCwtietlr°erdesir4l49 t -'!""ling dist° abolition of ail i,delat,Tous worship in India, and release obligation to take part in any ceremonies, rites, or f est i va l, who _ all persons, whether civil or military, fro p sp ro ::: ever, eolliiec;94 with the superstitions . of that country. :from ' per sonslt was of frequentlyheatheated said timaginationshstt these objects without any regard to the consequences that might ( ensue. Their Lordships would except the petitioners from tile einirge, tehen hp stated that they pro cee d e d upon an undoubted authority. The sh e rsesi wa' of ptittipg ttlene Possession of elle question, was to refer to 06 0 4 * 4 5.,14 PH by the Directors containing these instructions, on the guilt of Febr4ary ; 1833, which entered minutely into the subject. The Rev. prelate 11:1,4 ;1;e instructions, which were of colisi -1 dc.rabc leng,th, and proceeded to say tall the del:q whi c h had tiakep 2•l4ce in carrying . those instrat!tions into'ea'eet, was viewed - with great *patience - V . the Chiistiin putitiO. r in India, and numerous petitions had been presented i to the Supreme Court on the subject. He then read a letter from the Bishop of ,Nladras. complaining of the delay, and as we understood, recommending the abolition of the pilgrim tax. Fur four years after the passing these instructions nothing wes dune. On the 221 of February, 1837, another resolution was passed, in which the Directors called for further information, and said that the general consideration of the subject would be resumed as soon as that information was obtained. The Bishep of CHESTER presented a petition to the same effect, in which he entirely concurred. The Right Reverend Prelate observed when the pilgrims in India saw the idolatrous worship protected by theßritish Govern ment, thee would naturally conclude that all the efforts made by this country to disseminate Christianity among them were not made in sincerity.—( Hear. ) The Bishop of LONDON also supported the prayer of these petitions. After a few words from Lord GLICNELG and the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, the petitions were ordered to lie on the table. NEW POOR LAW. Lord WHARNCLIFFE rose to move fur copies of corres pondence between the Commissioners of the Poor-law and sundry persons on the subject of some alleged mismanagement in the administration of the law, and of particular cases of grievance said to have occurred in different parts of the country; and he must say, that the whole question of the Poor Law Amendment Bill and its administration was in as unsatisfactory a state as could well be imagined. It had been )n (secretion four years, and during that time it had been ap plauded on all sides, by the Members both of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and by almost the whole of the press of the country—( Hear, hear)—both the country press and the London press ; and one singular thing was that, up to the present moment, there had not been one real case of grievance established.—( Hear, hear.) He was one of those who was not entirely satisfied with the law now that he saw it in operation. Personally, and with regard to his own im mediate neighbourhood, he knew nothing, because there no alteration had taken place ; and he took it for granted that the old Poor-law was not so administered as to be attended with any of its evils. The Commissioners appeared to entertain the same opinion with respect to Lancashire, for the system had not been introduced there. However, he might un odoubtedly before long be required to act in the capacity of Guardian, and before he was called upon to act in that capacity the should like to have the twitter cleared up, and to see who- ' ther the accusations brought against the measure, and the Commissioners. were founded in truth. The first case men . tinned by the Noble and Learned Lord opposite was the case of the Bourne Union and General Johnson, and he must say that that was a most extraordinary case. It was a most extra . ordinary thing that Gen. Johnson should have thought proper to take facts on mere hearsay, and not to institute anything like a sufficient investigation before lie ventured to lay before the public the attacks which he made on the Bourne Union. He be lieved that Gen. Johnson was not only a member of the Quarter Sessions, and therefore connected with the neighbourhood, but was a Member of Parliament for a place in Lancashire; and, when he had made assertions in this town, at the Crown and Anchor, which must have directly referred to the Bourne Union, of which he was an ex officio Guardian, and when he had been celled upon to give an explanation of those assertions he (Lord Wharncliffe) must say that his refusal was most extraordinary. He was sorry to say that another case, which had been men tioned by his Noble and Learned Friend ( Lord Brougham,) was still stronger ; it occurred in the West Riding of York shire, where great agitation had prevailed on this subject. The inhabitants of that district were accustomed to inquiry__ they wore accustomed to unite and organiee'in opposition to what they thought wrong and in favour of what they consi dered right ; and they were easily excited- on any subject which appealed to their feelings. Under these circumstances various persons had certainly produced considerable impres sion on the minds of the inhabitants of that part of the coun try, and had used language at meetings which appeared to him to be so strong as to require some notice on the part of the Government ; it was not for him to say 'to what extent that language had proceeded, but if seditious language had e ver been used, it had been used on those occasions, and he held it to be the duty of the Government to interfere for the suppression of such violence, and to vindicate the law. One of the persoas to whom he had alluded he was sorry to say was a clergyman—he meant Mr. Bull—who had taken a part in these transactions which appeared to him most unjus tifiable. He had made two attacks upon the system of the Commissioners at two public meetings, one of which was at tended by many thousand persons; and he stated first of all many circumstances which had occurred at Nottingham, and made a charge of cruelty towards the persona in that work house. Now what was the fact? On inquiry it was quite clear that if those persons in the workhouse at Nottingham had been maltreated at all it must have been under the old Poor law and not the new. That being cleared up, he would proceed to the next charge. At a public meeting held at Brad ford Mr. Bull produced a letter, which he stated to be a circular from the Commissioners, and told a story of great cruelty being used towards a woman. [Tice Noble Lord here read an ex. tract from the speech of Mr. Bull.] A boy also stated at the same meeting that, in a workhouse, a young woman had been stripped and flogged upon her back like a soldier. That was told at a meeting of several thousands ; the cripple, it ap peared, was produced, and it must be confessed that the state ment was calculated to excite the horror of all who heard it. (hear, hear.) In consequence of that charge the Poor Law Commissioners wrote a letter, conceived in the most proper terms, asking for the name of the place and of the woman who had been fogged ; but—it was scarcely possible to believe it—( Hear, hear, hear)---Mr. Bull, a Clergyman of the Church of England, thought himself justified in refusing to give the least information that could lead to an investigation of the truth. He did not even answer the letter, but he published one in a newspaper—not addressed to the Commissioners, but to the editor; and that letter was one of a most curious descrip. tion. The Noble Lord then proceeded to read the letter re ferred to, and in which Mr. Bull charged the Poor Law Commissioners with having usurped the prerogatives of the Crown and the privileges of Parliament, and stating that he was prepared to prove that a cripple, whose case he had brought forward, was no fictitious person, and that he would be prepared to specify the case, provided the Poor Law Commissioners would give security that they would pro vide this individual with a single loaf per week for the next seven years. With respect to the alleged usurpation of powers, he ( Lord Wharncliffe) did not think that they had usurped any powers, nor exercised any but those which had been conferred on them by Parliament. Mr. Bull must have known the meaning of the words he used, and he certainly was surprised that a gentleman of education should have applied such a term as usurpation to power and authority that had been conferred by law. The next case he should mention was one in which his Noble Friend was con cerned, and in which he regretted that his Noble Friend had, as we understood, followed a similar course. The Poor-law Commissioners wrote to his Noble Friend for an explanation of some language which he had made use of. They did not ask his Noble Friend for an explanation of any thing that he had said in that House in the presence of his Peers, but they did ask him to explain language which he had made use of elsewhere. The Noble Lord here read the letter of the Commissioners, addressed, as we underssood, to Earl Stanhope, and requesting his Lordship to put them in possession of the authority on which he made the statements contained in a certain epeech of his, and also the reply of his Lordship to this communication, in which the Noble Lord stated that, with respect to their inquiry, lie would feel bound not to mention the name of any private individual front shorn lie received information, without his previous permission. Ile further stated, that the statements could be proved by competent witnesses upon oath ; but he declined to bring those persons forward for reasons similar to those stated by Mr. Bull.—( Hear.) Now he (Lord Wharncliffe) complained of Mr. Bull not alone for what he bad done; but likewise for the example which be had set. Their Lordships would con cur with him, that when any person came forward to attack persons in official situations—when charges were brought forward against such persons, calculated to prejudice their public conduct—the individual, whoever he might be, who brought forward such charges, was bound to state the grounds on which those charges rested. He thought that the sooner the matter of such charges was sited the better. If the stories of cruelty and oppression which had been told were true, they would at once be able to come to the conclusion that there must be something in the Act of Parliament under which they could be inflicted. Tho House of Commons had appointed a Committee to inquire into the operation of this Act, but he believed that Committee had done no more than make a report of the evidence. The whole question was com prised within a very small compass. Were those stories of neglect true or were they false? It appeared to him that the first thing that ought to be inquired into was whether those statements were true or whether they were false. He would now proceed to mention other cases in which he did not think the woikingof the Poor-law was altogether satisfac tory. The first cases to which he should allue were those of the Bridgewater Union. A certain gentleman, named Bowen, had written a pamphlet, and had published several letters on the subject in the Times newspaper. He (Lord Wharncliffe) must, however, say that he appeared to him to have made out too good a case for himself. In his published statements he showed too great an extent of mal administration —he showed too much, and over-proved his Case. as was generally the case with enthusiasts who, when they had a case to make out, generally went beyond the mark, and by doing so threw suspicion over their entire case. The Commissioners had ordered an inquiry, and when the result of that inquiry should be made known they would be best able to form a judgment ; but from what was stated, if those state eiente proved to be well founded, it would appear that with respect to the Bridgewater Union there was a good deal of blame to be attached to the conduct pursued by it. When these papers should be produced he should think it his duty to move their Lordships for a Committee to lec i elre into all those transactions to which they referred. The next case to which ho should call the attention of their Lordships was the eaga Pr perish in the county of Berke, naseel,v, illt!oWilet in the ustion of Hungestord."l.fils was a casit , that was by no means free from blame. It appears that a case occurred in this Union in which an able-bodied lebourer, with sown children applied to the parish for relief under these cir epastaneei :—This individual bad seven children, the eldest only thirteen years old. There was none of the Wally, eAe cept the father, able to earn Inythin,7 taw4Td4 d i e support of this fv;4111, and his earnlim amounted to eight shillings a week, a sum which was quite insufficient for the support of a man and his wife and seven elii!dren.—( Hear. hear.' a pplied to the worlsbottp t; relizve or. the liippoit'of some yophser children, but the' Guardiani refused to do so, st.ating thaf they had ko piiwer.' The Guardians then wrote i t) o w - (AniFnissioners, st.atiez e,nd i' 4 rgiv4 young td males of the family might be taken Into the workhouse, so as to enable the remainder of the family to live by the earnings of the father, But this the Commissioners refused to comply with, stating that it would be a grant in hid of wages. it aps ioted; lthen,llilat the reldest of this intl ividuat . to have Vart of his family admitted into the workhouse was refused. He knew that the notion prevailed that the only way to prevent relief being improperly adminietered was to make destitution the test of relief. But what further test did they require than to show that a man was in a state of distress to this amount that all he could earn was insufficient for the supp ,rt of his family? He thought that there ought to be a discretion al lowed, and that when a person was shown to be unable to support his family he ought to be assisted in doing so. He had trespassed longer upon their Lordships' attention than he had originally intended, but it ea; a subject on which be felt must anxious that all doubt and mite epreeentation should be fully cleared up. He had never disguised either in that House or elsewhere that he had supported the Poor Law Amendment Bill when it was in that House. He had never disguised his opinion that the evils of the old Poor-law, par ticularly in the south of England, were enormous, and that it was necessary that the old system should be superseded by some wise and comprehensive, and at the same time stringent law. They had now had four years' experience of the working of that law, and he thou g ht that it was the duty of those whose experience enabled them to point out the defects in the operation of this law to come tor ward and give the Commissioners appointed to Administer this Act an opportunity of showing what were its defects, and not only the Commissioners, but Parliament, in order that whatever defects were ascertained to exist might be remedied. Under these circumstances he begged to move for the production of the following papers :—Copy of the cor respondence between the Guardians of the Bourne Poor Union and General Johnson in February, 1838, relative' to the statement made by that officer at a public meeting at the Crown and Anchor Tavern ; also copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Poor Law Commissioners to the Rev. G. S. B u ll, reepecting certain passages contained in a speech delivered by him at a public meeting at Bradford, in the month of February last, together with the answer to such letter, if any has been received ; also copy of correspondence between Earl Stanhope and the Poor Law Commissioners in the month of January last, respecting a statement of the cases of several poor persons who had suffered under the Poor Law Amendment Act; also copy of a letter to the Pcor Law Com missioners from the minister, overseers, and ratepayers of Shalbourne, in the county of Berks, respecting relief to large families, by the admission of a part of such families to the Hungerford Union Poor-house, together with their answer thereto, dated the 3d of March, 1838; and also copy of any correspondence which may have taken place between the Poor Law Commissioners and any person whatever respecting the insufficiency of the dietary in the Bridgewater Union Poor house, or in consequence of any alleged improper conduct upon the part of eke guardians or surgeon of the union in the treatment of the poor thereof. Viscount MELBOURNE rose, and said that the Noble Lord had delivered a sort of half-and-half speech—(A laugh) —a speech, in short, of different aspects—sometimes looking one way, and sometimes another—sometimes to the north, and sometimes to the south—sometimes pouring out censure, and sometimes offering praise. But with respect to the im portant measure under discussion on the present occasion it was not his intention to go into any discussion of the great question of the Poor-law which laud already been so often discussed at such length on former occasions ; neither was it his intention to go into any discussion of the statements refer red to by the Noble Lord, nor to attempt any refutation of the arguments raised upon them. His opinion was that the matter was generally argued, as mostly happened in the case of all measures of improvement, without reference to the state of things that existed before. It was argued as if the state of things already existing before the Poor Law Act was altogether perfect, and that nothing but happiness existed be fore the passing of this Act. In fact, it seemed as if there was nothin g disagreeable to be complained of under the working of the old law. It appeared that great objection was found at present to the deportment of the overseers, and it was said that their manner was not the most agreeable, as if the overseers under the old system were the most agree able persons that could be. Now, if any inquiry had been instituted into the former system it would be found that it was a system under which a thousand times greater cruelty was exercised than anything that existed under this Act. His Noble Friend had stated that, upon the whole, no case had been made out against the Commissioners. He admitted, too, that no case had been made out against the law they administered, though in some instances it might not have been prudently administered. The Noble Lord stated that violent language had been made use of upon the introduction of the law into certain - districts. That great dissatisfaction and ex citement prevailed ; and that language of the most violent and exciting character was administered to this excitement. The Noble Lord quoted some of the language, and asked why had not the parties using it been prosecuted. But with respect to reedering those individuals amenable to Courts of Justice, there might be considerable doubt as to the wisdom of such a course. Of late years there had been much discussion with respect to the wisdom of prosecutions of this nature, and he certainly did not think that there was any great encourage ment to undertake them. The great difficulty was, that when a Government put a person on his trial for a violation of the law of libel they were themselves put as much on their trial as the party whom they accused. The feeling originally excited by the libel was passed away before the time of trial, and by the ingenious arguments of Counsel, the words made use of might not appear to bear as strong an interpretation as had been originally applied to them. lie could also collect, from his own experience, as well as from observation, how prone every person was to palliate and excuse language, however in temperate, however violent, or however inflammatory, if made use of by a partisan, or in support of those political opinions which such individual so judging was accustomed to espouse. There was generally a strong feeling excited by those prose cutions, and those who brought them forward did not always find themselves as energetically supported as they might ex pect, even by those who originally joined in recommending them. His Noble Friend had stated that the Commissioners should not introduce the Bill into districts during the pre valence of the excitement. Whether the course pursued was the most prudent or not he (Lord Melbourne) Is ould not stop to inquire. But in other cases the excitement yielded, and when the Commissioners explained the Act, and pointed out its beneficial tendencies, the prejudices previously existing gave way, and peace and tranquillity succeeded to the violence and prejudice which at first prevailed. Why should it not be ex pected that the same would have taken place amongst the people in the West Riding of Yorkshire, whom the Noble Lord described as being so intelligent? His Noble Friend had said that it was a bungling piece of legislation of the Act of Parliament of the Session before last, which made the clerk of the Poor-law Union necessarily the general register of the Union. But if that was a piece of bungling legisla tion, which he by no means thought it to be, yet it came from the other side of the House, and was introduced on the sug gestion of Lord Ellenborough. That Act had been intro duced previous to the excitement respecting the Poor-law, end at a period when there was every prospect that the whole country would be formed into unions in a very short time. It was felt then that there was every reason to suppose that this measure would be carried into effect in a short time, and that persons would be found throughout the country eepable of filling those situations with efficiency. With respect to the correspondence moved for, he (Lord Melbourne) had no ob jection to its production. When his Noble Friend got the papers he would be able to see the real nature of the Bridge• water case. This case, he believed, originated in a dispute between the Board of Guardians and the medical men of the Bridgewater Union. With respect to the other case men tioned, he must own that he could not come to the same conch', sion as his Noble Friend with respect to the conduct of the Commissioners. That case appeared to him to involve the entire principle of the Bill. It involved to a great extent the question of out-door relief and the question of making up the wages of the labourer out of the poor-rate. The ease was this. The guardians complained that an able-bodied man with a large family asked relief, and that he was told that he could not get relief outside the workhouse, and that he then came with all his family into the workhouse, and in consequence became an expence to the workhouse for 4 longer period of time than he would have been if a part of his family had been originally admitted. It was put to the Commissioners on the ground of economy. After a few further remarks in vindica tion of the Commissioners, the Noble Lord concluded by stating that hegavehis consent to the motion of the Noble Lord, The - Earl of RA DN 0 R thought that they might as well give up the whole principle :on which the• Bill was framed as depart from the principle on which the Commissioners acted in the case of the Hungerford Union. He thought if that point was conceded they might as well abandon the Bill alto gether. In one union that he could mention, the Dumber o f paupers the winter before last Iris 1,20 'while, severe as last winter was the number did not excited 61. The same result wai shown in another case. The winter before the new Poiir La w came into operation there were in this union t4Of.t paupers, but last wintor the numbers did not exceed do. With this expe rience, therefore, of the operation of the measure he did l lo t hope that his Noble Friend would think twice before ho de.. cided finally against the propriety of enforcing these rules. The Noble Earl the other night complained that the new Poor-law had tended to increase the amount of crime, but this was not the fact, as the returns which he held i n his hand would show. For the most part the parties b y w h om crime was committed were not paupers, hnd the ret urns to which he referred would show that the state of crime in the country could have no reference whatever to the working of the new Poor-laws. The Earl of WINCHIL SE A was convinced, from his knowledge of the poor, that no parents would be found who would allow their children to go into the worlabouse unless under circumstances of dire necessity, and, he there fore, hoped that in any alterations which ;, t ight be made a dis cretionary power to afford out-door relief would be given to the Guardians. _ _ -- L or a FALKLAND fully participated in the feeling that the Noble Earl ( Stanhope) had not made out a case against the new Poor-laws, and he thought if their Lordships were to do away with the Finciple Wi which they were carried into e ffb o , by the Commissioners that they might as well get rid of the laws themselves altogether. Earl STANHOPE did not think that PArlimile.nt had a right to pass such an Act, but in the lino of conduct he pur sued he was accountable n@itlor to that House, nor to any Nlernber of it, hilt (ally to God and his conscience. It was irrip - atod against him that he had circulated statinntiil4 which he had received fro.n his correspondent, to his friend Mr. Oastler, and that Mr, Oanlev Laiing mentioned them at a they found their way into the newspapers, tie denied that he had made any complaints against OA/ nonts by whom the law was carried into onerrtio4 the contrary, his charge was azjiy,t sy.e.ite . A itself, and not against thattt vibtA omiod"ii into effect—that the system was jireauctive of injury and injustice to the poor. His Not;le 11,14 Learned Friend opposite was an advocate for t1..0 ‘ . bolition of negro slavery, and therefore lie ask - him whether he did net 44averx • lust' s as 'objectionable ever-where, even 'where the ‘master was kind and indulg - ent as wbon hq litts'the 've'7 oßosite and ill-treated IP sliee 1; \laa ; S • answer, then, to nis complaints against tbi4l law, to say that he had not trought forward individual instances of hardship or of oppression. The truth was he had abstained from brhigmg forward irnlividual cases, end those who had given aim infor mation had declined to furnish him with names, wisely follow i)4 the example of Mr. Bull. lie did not hesitate to say that he was willing to take " the Bull by the horns" in this respect, because his object was, not an attack upon individuals, but against the Act itself. It was absurd to say that the subject scold be inquired into. Where was there a tribunal proper for the purpose ? None existed, utiless, indeed, parties were allowed to sit in judgment on their own -oases. He agreed with the Noble Lord at the bead of her Majesty's Government in many of the judicious observations he had made use of, par ticularly those in which the Noble Lord stated his determina tion of resisting any intemperate advice that might he given him. He should have no objection to have all his correspond ence upon this subject laid upon the table, and it was at the disposal of their Lordships, who might think it worth nbile to w ide through such a mountain of papers. Lord BROUGHAM said he was so much exhausted with the labours of the morning that he was hardly able to state hat he otherwise would have wished to have done with re f, recce to the speech of the Noble Earl. He regretted to hear the Noble Earl promise to afford their Lordships so many opportunities of discussing this delicate question.— ( Hear, hear.) lie regretted the Noble Earl's perseverance in pursuing this exciting and inflammatory course--( Hear, hear)—as it could not possibly do any earthly good, either to „Vie measure in operation, or forward the views of the Noble Earl. It was a course which was only calculated to excite end rouse the feelings of peaceable and well-disposed indi viduals upon a measure which was the law of the land; and he really hoped that the Noble Earl's good sense and better and calmer reason would teach him abstain from mooting and agitating this question so often.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble and Learned Lord then said that he considered he had been ill-treated with respect to the observations of the Noble Earl, and of another Noble Lord who had left the House, regarding what he had said as to the case of the Rev. Mr. Bull. When he said that the Rev. Gentleman had sent no answer to the Commissioners, he was told that he had pub lished an answer in the newspapers. That answer, however, in his (Lord Brougham's) opinion ought not to be considered as any answer at all, for it neither mentioned the time nor the place at which any of the circumstances he found fault with took place. The same might be said with reference to Mr. Oastler. All that those gentlemen had put forth were very awkward and improper statements to be made at public meet ings. If attention was paid to the statements put forth in the different newspapers it would be necessary to enter into a correspondence with every part of England, in order to be enabled to contradict those statements, however groundless in themselves. He had to apologise to their Lordships, but he really could not hear this subject misrepresented without en deavouring to set it right. He hoped his Noble Friend would reconsider the matter, and not persist in waging interininahle war against the Poor-law Bill, as he had declared his determi nation to do. The Bishop of NORWICH could speak as an active guar dian of the working of the Bill. He believed the Noble Ear l had not the same opportunity, as be had never been a guar dian. He (the Bishop of Norwich) had visited the work houses in his district, and on inquiry of the inmates he found that they were all satisfied. So much for the state ments of the Noble Earl as to those places, which be called prisons. Lord WHARNCLIFFE in reply, said that if the papen 3 which he had moved for did not prove satisfactory, he should move for a Committee to inquire into the whole of the charges to which those papers referred. After a few words from the Earl of RADNOR, in m oving for certain returns relating to the Dudley Union, which wer e ' agreed to, the original motion was put and also agreed to. , The Abolition of Sl avery B i ll was reported, with amend'. merits. The Dissenters' Declaration Bill went through Committe e, and was reported to th e H ouse, an d ordered to be read a t hird time to-morrow.—Adjourned. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TAT TER SALL' S—Yzsreanar. THE RIDDLESWORTH. 9 to 4 was betted three or four times on the Cobweb colt, and one 50 to 20, but at the close the first-mentioned price was the outside. THE DERBY, 1 T 03, wo or three changes gavo a little interest to betting• looking at the amount laid out, and the small number of favourites in request, was quite as dull as might have been expected from the state of the market durin g th e l ast t h ree or four weeks. Although one or two were fortunate enough to get a little money on at G 1, the general offers ag a i ns t C o b we b did not exceed 11 to 2. S e veral parties appeared anx i ous to b ac k him, 12 to 1 was betted against each of the t wo succee di ng favourites, to two h u ndred , pounds, Nonplus havi ng a deeidesi call at the finish. Alemo_,roung Rowten, and Cobham were i n request , an d 20 to las o was taken in a good quart er a b out D'E gv il le, but no desire to back either lon or Early Bi r d. N o ot h er changes 11 to 2 agst Lord J erse y' s C o b we b co l t—take 6 t o 12 to 1 agst Mr. Armit age ' s Nonplus colt—takers &12to 1 agst Lord G. B en ti nc k' s G rey M omus--ta ken after wards offered 14 to 1 agst Mr. E. Pe e l' s Th e E ar l y Bi r d— no b ac kers 16 to 1 agst Mr. Bland's Y oung R ow t on — ta k en 16 to 1 agst Ld Exeter's Al em d ar —t a k en & afterwar d s of f e red 33 to 2 agst Colonel Peel's lon—take n an d a f terwar d s o ff ere d 20 to 1 agst Mr. IL Coombes's Cobham—ditt o 20 to 1 agst Ld G. Bentinck's D'E gv ill e —t a k en 26 to 1 agst Captain Berkel e y' s B u lli on—ta k en 30 to 1 agst Mr. Worrall's Vormouse—taken 30 to 1 agst Sir J. Mills' s Volunteer—taken worwthasusotice. 30 to 1 agst Lord Suflield's Bamboo —taken 30 to 1 agst Lord Westminster's Richard Roe 30 to 1 agst Mr. Richardvon's Monc Adam 50 to 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Tranby's dam colt—taken 50 to 1 agst Slr, W. Edwards's Drum-major —taken 50 to 1 agst Mr. Ford's Quo Minus—offered 50 to 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Bretby—offered 50 to 1 agst Mr. A. Smith's Cracker—taken 1000 to 15 agst Lord Warwick's Lady Neville colt—taken 1000 to 10 agst Lord Wilton's Davie Gellatley—offered 2000 to 25 agst Sir G. Heatheote's Amato—taken 3000 to 50 agst Lord Stradbroke's Beggarman-,-taken 750 to 200 agst Cobweb and Grey Momus—taken 500 even between Tranby's dam and Quo Minus—.taken THE OAKS. The only mares backed were Unique and Nunez, the former for one hundred at 10 to 1, and the other for about a hundred and fifty pounds at 12, and afterwards 11 to 1 ; the takers offering to go " at the latter price. It was stated on g oo d au th or i ty that Lord Berners was wad. This disqualifies his n ame f ar the 'Oaks, Pho s ph orus for the Pe rt, and all other horses entered in his Lordship's name. at The Epsom Spring R aces ta k e place to-morrow week; g re exertions are making to render them attractive. SIR WILLIAM K NIGHTON ' S Ire are requested to state that the " Memoi. -. .8 of Sir \Vilna,: Knighton, Bart." will b e p u bli s h e d b y Mr. Bentley, Ne Burlington-street, (Publi s h er i n Ordir,lary to her Majesty) °n the 80th instant, this postponement having arisen from un avoidable circumstances. THE NEW NAVAL NOVEL, t , OUTtYARD BOUND." BY TILE AUTHOR OF " RATTLIN TILE REEFEIt: The scenes on shipboard in this romance of the sea are zearcel exceeded in vividness and excitement by the best passages ° } l the best wotits of th e c l ass. Th ose in the brig Jane, in whic the enthusiast Gavel figures, are from the first to the last eX" eeedingly powerful. Yet these are equalled by t h e subse : quent scenes in th e S anta Anna, sNhere we have a quick sue" cession of all th a t i s most breath.suspending, awful, and ar palling. The work is one of great and various talent. PLATE SUITED FOR PRESENTATION.. Elegant o r Spl en did Sil ver Inkstands—Silver Waiters of overy.ol,‘r —SilNbe Cups, N ew an d S econ d - h and—Fifty varieties of S i lver Tea and Coffee S erv i ces—Gold S nuff Boxes—Silver 'fable SO ir ; Boxes—Sil ver Ep ergnes — Sil ver Bread Basket. And many othe article: of Pl a t e a d ap t e d f or P resentation as Testimonials, &c., m B J ,„ be sePected from, in the Show Rooms at Working Silversmith,T. ol COX mi SAVOR'S, h' Gdsth, and Wa Y tchmaker 47, C" 11-ll London (Seven Doors from Gracechurch-street). BIRTBV. On the 4th inst., the lady of the Rev. F. B. Wright, M.A., a nd Curate of Church flandborough, Oxfordshire, of a daughter. , At Florence, on th e 12th init., the wif o o f W. R . Grove, Esq of a son. On the 22d inst., in Southampton -buildings, Mrs. C. CiouchP of a daughter, On the .94th inst., at Upper Clapton, the lady of C. Ba rl°"' ' Estl„ of a daughter. On the 23d lust., at Tonbridge, th e l a d y o f H . J . J oseer s, "" of a son. On the 20th inst., in Moray-pl ace , Edi n b urg h , t h e l a dy of W. Hunter, Esq., of a daughter. On the 23d inst., at Park Village the wife of M. F. Tupp er ' Esq., of a daughter. On the 18th inst., at Kingston -on-Thames, the lady of Wr n Barwick, Esq., of a daughter. On the 19th inst., the lady of F. J. Pigou, Esq., of a son. On the 22d inst., the lady of John Lily Ostler, Esq., of a 3". MARRIED. On the 24th inst., at Moreton Hampstead, Devon, Miss Em ma Cuttris, of Greenwich, to Mr. Joseph Cole, stationer, of the 5 0 ' e place. • On the 22d inst., at Barkby, Leicestershire, Horace James , Esq., of Craven-street, London, t o Eli za b eth Francis, e ld es t daugn ter of G. Pochin, Esq., of Barkby-hall. On the 22d inst., at St. Paul's, Hammersmith, Thos. J. Il aW° kins, Esq., of Waltner court, Bathurst, New South Wales, to Ann' eldest daughter of J. Bow lin', Esq., of Hammersmith. On the 24 h inst , at Bow Church, Captain 11. Stack, 43th Re- Omeut, to Caroline, yo ungest daughter of the late James Trigge' t.sq , formerly of Windsor. DIED. At Florence, on the 10th inst. the Right Hon. Lord Solsey• On the 24th inst., at Wormleybury, Ilerts, Sir Abrabana Bart., aged 90. On the Ritli inst., Lewin, aged four years and a half, and on the :lad David, age d two years, the two youngest chib ; ren o f 31r. W. H. S m ith , of L i ttle Tower-street. zt On the 23d i nst., i n C olborn-place, Mile-end-road, M ar y, rob of the Rev. G: Ford, of St epney , age d 8 0. An the 23d inst., Mr s . Eli za b e th M arc h, o f Y or k- ro w, Kenning- ton-road. On the 2d i ns t., at T e ddi ngton, Middlesex, Dr. W eym outh, for merly of P ortsea , age d 6i. Oa th e . 24 - 1 asst., at Ham mersm ith, Willi am P eu ley, Esq. , a , f . atnerly of C onnaug h t - terrace. On the 24th i nst . , J ane, d aughter of N . L i evcn, E s q. a , On the 23d inst., in Harmood-place, Hampstead-road, Thom Billings, Eitip psi 66• On Ow '414 inst., in Bruton-street, • John Vaughan Dutton, Esq'' -I :eZeti On the 23d inst., in Eaton-square, Price Blackwood Co l q uhoun, aged 14 months, youttge , st son of R. Bernal, Esq., M.P. 1 4`z , vA, 1 Printed and Published by MURDO YOUN G . of NG ' 02, Strand, at The Sun. Office, Na 112, Strand, in the coon of Middlesex.—Tuesday, March 27, 1838.